the dialogic organization development approach to ...gervasebushe.ca/practicing.pdf · the dialogic...

Correct citation: Bushe, G.R. & Marshak, R.J. (2016) The Dialogic Organization Development Approach to Transformation and Change. In Rothwell, W. Stravros, J., & Sullivan R. (eds.) Practicing Organization Development 4th Ed. (407-418). San Francisco, Wiley.

CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE

The Dialogic Organization Development Approach to Transformation and Change

Gervase R. Bushe and Robert J. Marshak

In the last 30 years, the post-modern

orientation in the social sciences, and the

discoveries in non-linear and complexity

natural sciences, have been influential in

altering ideas about change and change

practices. These ideas and change practices

have led to a variety of methods (see Table

31.1) that deviate from key tenets of the

diagnostic forms of organization

development (OD) created during the

1960s-1970s. We have labeled these ideas

and practices Dialogic OD (Bushe &

Marshak, 2009) and have been studying

their common philosophical basis, and how

they actually create change in practice

(Bushe & Marshak, 2014a). Overall, we’ve

concluded that simply having “good

dialogues” is not enough to create change,

but that Dialogic OD approaches can help

leaders and organizations meet adaptive

challenges (Heifetz, 1998) and create

transformational change (Bushe & Marshak,

2015a). In this chapter, we identify eight

key premises of a Dialogic OD Mindset and

contrast these with a Diagnostic Mindset.

We also identify the three core change

processes that, whether practitioners are

aware of it or not, are the source of change

in Dialogic OD efforts. Based on our

research we believe that Dialogic OD

practices are now widely used, but under a

variety of names and without a clear

understanding of their shared premises nor

their similarities and differences with

foundational OD. Furthermore, dialogic

methods seem to be especially effective

when dealing with two types of

contemporary issues. One is when the

prevailing ways of thinking, talking about,

and addressing organizational dilemmas

traps an organization and its leaders in

repetitive but futile responses. The other is

when facing wicked problems, paradoxical

issues and adaptive challenges, where there

is little agreement about what’s happening

and where there are no known solutions or

remedies available to address the situation.

Dialogic approaches work by fostering

generativity to develop new possibilities

rather than problem-solving, altering the

prevailing narratives and stories that limit

new thinking, and working with the self-

organizing, emergent properties of complex

systems. Dialogic OD offers a viable

alternative to the create a vision, plan a

path to it, and implement through action

teams practice of organizational change,

and is better able to meet some of the

challenging complexities of twenty-first

century organizing.

Correct citation: Bushe, G.R. & Marshak, R.J. (2015) The Dialogic Organization Development Approach to Transformation and Change. In Stravros, J., Rothwell, W. & Sullivan R. (eds.) Practicing Organization Development 4th Ed. (407-418). San Francisco, Wiley.

Table 31.1 Examples of Dialogic OD Methods

1. Art of Convening (Neal and Neal)

2. Art of Hosting (artofhosting.org)

3. Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider)

4. Charrettes (Lennertz)

5. Community Learning (Fulton)

6. Complex Responsive Processes of Relating (Shaw)

7. Conference Model (Axelrod)

8. Coordinated Management of Meaning (Pearce & Cronen)

9. Cycle of Resolution (Levine)

10. Dynamic Facilitation (Rough)

11. Engaging Emergence (Holman)

12. Future Search (Weisbord)

13. Intergroup Dialogue (Nagada, Gurin)

14. Moments of Impact (Ertel & Solomon)

15. Narrative Mediation (Winslade & Monk)

16. Open Space Technology (Owen)

17. Organizational Learning Conversations (Bushe)

18. Participative Design (M. Emery)

19. PeerSpirit Circles (Baldwin)

20. Polarity Management (Johnson)

21. Preferred Futuring (Lippitt)

22. Reflexive Inquiry (Oliver)

23. REAL model (Wasserman & Gallegos)

24. Real Time Strategic Change (Jacobs)

25. Re-Description (Storch)

26. Search Conference (Emery & Emery)

27. Six Conversations (Block)

28. SOAR (Stavros)

29. Social Labs (Hassan)

30. Solution Focused Dialogue (Jackson & McKergow)

31. Sustained Dialogue (Saunders)

32. Syntegration (Beer)

33. Systemic Sustainability (Amodeo & Cox)

34. Talking stick (preindustrial)

35. Technology of Participation (Spencer)

36. Theory U (Scharmer)

37. Visual Explorer (Palus & Horth)

38. Whole Scale Change (Dannemiller)

39. Work Out (Ashkenas)

40. World Café (Brown & Issacs)

2 Forthcoming in Practicing Organization Development (4th Edition), Wiley.

EIGHT KEY PREMISES OF DIALOGIC

OD

Dialogic OD is still an evolving convergence

of newer premises, principles, and resulting

practices that lead practitioners to

approach situations with a different way of

thinking and acting. We hope to speed up

this convergence by giving it its own name

and identity - Dialogic OD - and inviting OD

practitioners into a conversation about its

underlying premises and practices, both

now and going forward.

Based on our review of the range of

methods listed in Table 31.1 and an in-

depth analysis of six major theories of

Dialogic OD practice (Bushe & Marshak,

2014b), we have identified eight key

premises that we believe shape the Dialogic

OD mindset: a set of fundamental beliefs

about organizations and change that differ

in important ways from the thinking found

in Diagnostic OD.

1. Reality and relationships are socially

constructed. The Dialogic OD mindset

believes that organizations are socially

constructed realities. It is how we socially

define and describe objective and

subjective “facts” that influence what

people think and do. In every conversation,

this reality is being created, maintained,

and/or changed. Furthermore, there is no

single objective social reality. Instead, there

are many different “truths” about any

organization, some dominant and some

peripheral.

2. Organizations are meaning making systems.

The Dialogic OD mindset thinks of

organizations not just as open systems

interacting with an environment, but as

dialogic systems in which people are

continuously sense-making and meaning-

making, individually and in groups. What

happens in organizations is influenced more

by how people interact and make meaning

then how presumably objective external

factors and forces impact the system.

3. Language, broadly defined, matters. The

Dialogic OD mindset thinks that words (and

other forms of communication) do more

than convey information, they create

meaning. Thinking is powerfully influenced

by written and verbal communications and

the underlying narratives, stories and

metaphors people use when engaging with

each other. Change is created and

sustained by changing what words mean

and by changing the words, stories and

narratives that are used in groups and

organizations.

4. Creating change requires changing

conversations. The social construction of

reality occurs through the conversations

people have, everyday. Change requires

changing the conversations that normally

take place. This can occur from changing

who is in conversation with whom (e.g.,

increasing diversity, including marginalized

voices), what is being talked about, how

those conversations take place, increasing

conversational skills, and by asking what is

being created from the content and process

of current conversations.

5. Groups and organizations are inherently

self-organizing. The Dialogic OD mindset

believes that organizations are self

organizing, emergent systems where social


reality is being constructed every day. The

Dialogic OD mindset finds it more useful to

think of organizations as continuous flows,

rather than stable entities, where different

processes, structures and ideas vary in how

quickly they are changing. OD practitioners

may nudge, accelerate, deflect, punctuate,

or disrupt these normal processes, but they

do not unfreeze and re-freeze them.

Stakeholders who care about the state of

the system, who are able to develop rich

enough information networks, and are not

constrained by any one group’s power, will

frequently find ways to respond to

challenges that are too complex for leaders

to successfully address through planning

and controlling approaches. Instead, the

leader’s job in Dialogic OD approaches is to

create spaces where useful changes can

emerge, and then support and amplify

those changes.

6. Increase differentiation in participative

inquiry and engagement before seeking

coherence. In foundational OD,

organizational system members are

involved at various times in diagnosing

themselves and making action choices to

address identified issues. The Dialogic OD

mindset reflects a much broader

conception of engagement that is based on

methods of inquiry intended to discover

new and transformational possibilities. The

resulting processes of participative inquiry

(rather than diagnosis), engagement, and

reflection are designed to: a) maximize

diversity, b) encourage stakeholders to

voice their unique perspectives, concerns

and aspirations, and c) surface the variety

of perspectives and motivations in the

system, without privileging anyone, before

seeking new convergences and coherence.

7. Transformational change is more emergent

than planned. Transformational change

cannot be planned toward some

predetermined future state. Rather,

transformation requires holding an

intention while moving into the unknown.

Disrupting current patterns in a way that

engages people in uncovering collective

intentions and shared motivations is

required. As a result, change processes are

more opportunistic and heterarchichal,

where change can and does come from

anywhere in the organization, more than

planned, hierarchical and top-down.

8. Consultants are a part of the process, not

apart from the process. OD practitioners

cannot stand outside the social construction

of reality, acting as independent facilitators

of social interaction. Their mere presence is

part of the discursive context that

influences the meaning making taking

place. OD practitioners need to be aware of

their own immersion in the organization

and reflexively consider what meanings

they are creating and what narratives their

actions are privileging and marginalizing.

As shown in Figure 31.1, these premises

lead to different ways of thinking about the

basic building blocks of organization

transformation and change, even as

practitioners may on the surface seem to

engage in similar steps as in Diagnostic OD.

For example, one can use AI methods

diagnostically: collect and analyze stories

during Discovery, identify preferred


outcomes during Dream, propose

alternative actions during Design, and

choose and implement changes during

Destiny. Yet when decisions and actions

follow from a Dialogic OD mindset, the

choices made and actions taken will be very

different (Bushe, 2012). As Shaw (2002)

notes in discussing foundational OD,

“Above all I want to propose that if

organizing is understood essentially as a

conversational process, an inescapably self-

organizing process of participating in the

spontaneous emergence of continuity and

change, then we need a rather different

way of thinking about any kind of

organizational practice that focuses on

change” ( p. 11).

Figure 31.1. Contrasting Polar Ideal Types: Diagnostic and Dialogic Mindsets

From Bushe, G.R., & Marshak, R.J. (2014b). The dialogic mindset in organization development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 22, p.86.

Correct citation: Bushe, G.R. & Marshak, R.J. (2015) The Dialogic Organization Development Approach to Transformation and Change. In Stravros, J., Rothwell, W. & Sullivan R. (eds.) Practicing Organization Development 4th Ed. (407-418). San Francisco, Wiley.

THE CORE PROCESSES OF

TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE IN

DIALOGIC OD

Simply having good “dialogues”, creating

spaces where people are willing and able to

speak their minds and listen carefully to one

another, is not sufficient for

transformational change to occur. We

propose that three underlying change

processes, singly or in combination, are

essential to the successful use of any of the

Dialogic OD methods listed in Table 31.1

(Bushe & Marshak, 2015a). Said another

way, we believe that failures of any Dialogic

OD method to stimulate transformational

change is a result of none of the following

three transformational processes having

happened.

Transformational Process 1: Emergence

Transformation Process 1 is when a

disruption in the ongoing social

construction of reality is stimulated or

engaged in a way that leads to a more

complex re-organization. This disruption

occurs when the previous order or pattern

of social relations falls apart, and there is

little chance of going back to the way things

were. Disruptions can be planned or

unplanned, and the group or organization

may be able to self-organize around them

without much conscious leadership. From a

Dialogic OD perspective, however,

transformation is unlikely to take place

without disruption of the “established”

meaning-making processes (Holman, 2015;

Stacey, 2015).

A variety of Dialogic OD methods can be

used to create containers for productive

conversations to take place that support re-

organizing at higher levels of complexity

despite the anxiety that disruptive endings

can create. However, once disrupted, it is

impossible to plan or control what might

then happen; the options range from

complete dissolution to reorganization at a

higher level of complexity (Prigogine &

Stengers, 1984). Practitioners operating

from a dialogic mindset tend to encourage

leaders to confront and push the system

close to chaos while expanding and

enriching the networks amongst

stakeholders, rather than pursuing

diagnostically induced planned change from

a current to a desired future state. It is at

the close to chaos boundary that self-

organizing changes can emerge (Kauffman,

1995; Pascale, Milleman & Gioa, 2001).

Dialogic OD practitioners assume that fully

engaging organizational members in such

self-organization will lead to more impactful

changes, more quickly, than attempts to

plan and implement prescribed changes.

Transformational Process 2: Narrative

Transformational Process 2 is when there is

a change to one or more core narratives.

Core narratives are the storylines people

use to explain and bring coherence to their

organizational lives by making sense of

ongoing “facts” and events. Changing what

people think or their social agreements -

for example about the role of women in

organizations, or about hierarchical


structures, or even about how change

happens in organizations - requires

changing the common, prevailing storylines

endorsed by those presently and/or

historically in power (Marshak & Grant,

2008). Stories are a way of managing

change, particularly culture change, and

transformational change is often

constituted by transformations in the

narratives that participants author (e.g.,

Brown & Humphreys 2003; Buchanan &

Dawson, 2007). A variety of the methods

listed in Table 31.1 can be used as a

conscious intervention into the narratives

and story making processes of an

organization (Storch, 2015; Swart, 2015).

Transformational Process 3: Generativity

The third transformation process happens

when a generative image is introduced or

surfaces that provides new and compelling

alternatives for thinking and acting. A

generative image is one or more words,

pictures, or other symbols that provide new

ways of thinking about social and

organizational reality. They, in effect, allow

people to imagine alternative decisions and

actions that could not be imagined before

the generative image surfaced.

“Sustainable development” is one iconic

example of a generative image. Even

though it cannot be defined (one quality of

truly generative images) it continues to spin

off innovations more than 25 years after it

was first coined. A second property of

generative images is that they are

compelling; people want to act on the new

opportunities the generative image evokes.

A variety of the methods listed in Table 31.1

are often supported by using generative

images as the initiating themes or questions

for inquiry (Bushe, 2013b) or by evoking

new generative images in the process of

dialogue and inquiry (Storch & Ziethen,

2013). Bushe’s research has found that

generative images are central to successful

applications of AI (Bushe, 1998, 2010,

2013a; Bushe & Kassam, 2005), and we

propose that they are also central to

Dialogic OD approaches more broadly

defined (Bushe & Storch, 2015).

WHAT DO DIALOGIC OD

PRACTITIONERS DO?

Dialogic OD practice differs along a

continuum from episodic change practices

to continuous change practices (Bushe &

Marshak, 2014a). An episodic change

practice focuses on one or more events

intended to help a group or organization

transform from one semi-stable state to

another. A continuous change practice is

based on a stream of ongoing interactions

intended to make small alterations to the

ongoing patterns of interaction or self-

organization that, over time, accumulate

into a transformed state of being.

Those sponsoring Dialogic OD usually do

not know exactly what changes are needed,

wanted or how to achieve them. The

complexity of the issues and dynamics

leaders and organizations face in the 21st

century world of work means that

application of “best practices” or pre-

existing knowledge to identify and then


implement change is unlikely to be

successful. This has been described by

Heifetz (1998) as the difference between

technical problems and adaptive challenges,

and by Snowden & Boone (2000) as the

difference between complicated and

complex decision situations. Dialogic OD

practitioners believe that dialogic processes

are the most effective way to deal with

adaptive, complex challenges. During the

entry process, the Dialogic OD practitioner

will work with the sponsors to identify, in

general, their intentions and the range of

potentially affected stakeholders who need

to be engaged in the Dialogic OD process.

They may or may not decide it is important

to create a “planning” or “hosting” group

that in some way represents those

stakeholders to help architect the change

effort. This is usually more important when

the change involves a complex issue, for

example: transportation in the region,

where there’s a need to engage a large or

very large group of stakeholders and when

operating from a more episodic change

mindset. It’s critical at this stage for the

OD practitioner and the sponsor to agree on

the desired directions of the change effort

and for the sponsor to be able and willing to

make the necessary resources, particularly

time, money, and personal commitment,

available for the project.

Some Dialogic OD methods involve

participants in becoming explicitly aware of

the stories, narratives, and patterns of

discourse they are embedded in while

others do not. In either case, all assume

that personal and/or organizational change

will require a change in those narratives.

Some focus primarily on changing the

discourse while others focus on both

discourse and the changes in decisions and

action that emerge from it. Like Diagnostic

OD, Dialogic OD involves both structured

interventions (like action research) and

experiential interventions (like process

consultation). In the following we briefly

summarize both types of Dialogic OD

practice.

Structured Dialogic OD

Structured Dialogic OD involves one or

more events. These events are designed so

that relationships and communications are

enhanced to enable more creativity and

engagement. Practitioners create a

“container” (Corrigan, 2015) within which

new conversations can take place, new

relationships forged, and ideas for change

emerge. Much of the difference in Dialogic

OD methods concerns ways of orchestrating

(rather than facilitating) what happens in

these containers. In all cases, when

successful, participants make personal,

voluntary commitments to new behaviors

and projects. An emergent or

improvisational, as opposed to a planned

implementation, approach to the action

phase is generally used. Events are

intended to generate and support self-

organizing groups with ideas for change to

take action, without knowing which of

these will actually be successful.

Practitioners work with leaders to watch

and learn, cultivate the ideas that lead the


organization in the desired direction,

amplify their impact, and embed them into

the organization’s fabric (Roehrig,

Schwendenwein, & Bushe, 2015)

Unstructured Dialogic OD

We refer to less structured approaches to

Dialogic OD as “dialogic process

consultation”. In these approaches, a

practitioner will bring a dialogic mindset to

one-on-one and small group interactions.

In some approaches to dialogic process

consultation, the OD practitioner helps

individuals become aware of and take more

control over the prevailing images,

metaphors, and narratives that are shaping

how people think and act (Marshak, 2013).

They may focus attention to the ways in

which conversations that differ from the

prevailing wisdom are restricted or

encouraged, for example the degree to

which a diversity of participants and

perspectives are included or excluded in key

organizational decisions. They may invite

consideration of processes of generativity;

especially how to foster new images that

will influence the ongoing construction and

re-construction of social reality (Storch &

Ziethen, 2013).

The most provocative approaches to

dialogic process consultation are based on

concepts of complexity, meaning making,

emergence, and self-organization. These

dialogic process activities assume

relationships and organizations are

continuously re-creating themselves

through the on-going conversations that

occur at all levels and parts of an

organization, (Shaw, 2002; Stacey, 2015).

Any shifts in the nature of these

conversations, for example, their

participants, emphases, or patterns, will

encourage incremental shifts that lead

groups to self-organize in new and different

ways without the need to bring anything to

awareness. There is no use of specially

structured events to shift from a current

state to a more desired future state

(Goppelt & Ray, 2015; Ray & Goppelt,

2013). Instead the OD practitioner enters

into a team or organization that is assumed

to be in the continuous process of

becoming, participates fully in the ongoing

life of the system while seeking to draw

attention to, or modify, any on-going

dialogic patterns that may be blocking or

limiting the organization’s ability to evolve,

and/or by accentuating differences that

might encourage new patterns to emerge.

SUMMARY

Dialogic and Diagnostic OD are not two

different things – they are different ways of

thinking. We believe they both exist, more

or less, in the mental maps of individual OD

practitioners. Like yin and yang, they can

combine in a myriad of ways to affect an OD

practitioner’s choices and actions. We

advocate avoiding either/or arguments and,

instead, inquiry into the opportunities for

change each mindset provides separately

and in combination.

It is unclear to us, at this time, whether

dialogic transformational change requires

all or most all of the eight premises, and


more than one of the three core

transformational processes to be

successful. To us and other Dialogic OD

practitioners they do seem related, either

explicitly or implicitly. It is difficult to

imagine, for example, a change in a core

narrative that did not also involve a

disruption to the prevailing social

construction of reality. But changes in core

narratives do occur over time, which do not

necessarily involve an abrupt disruption. In

a world of constant change, however,

“disruption” is mainly a matter of temporal

perspective. Our current proposition is that

transformational change from Dialogic OD

results from some combination of the three

change processes as supported by the eight

key premises. Hopefully, Dialogic OD, and

the narrative advanced in this chapter,

serves as a generative image evoking new

insights into the potential for OD practices

to transform organizations and realize more

effective organizing.

REFERENCES

Brown, A. D., & Humphreys, M. (2003). Epic and tragic tales: Making sense of change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(2), 121-144.

Buchanan, D., & Dawson, P. (2007). Discourse and audience: organizational change as multi‐story process. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 669-686.

Bushe, G.R. (1998) Appreciative inquiry in teams. Organization Development Journal, 16(3), 41-50.

Bushe, G.R. (2010). A comparative case study of appreciative inquiries in one

organization: Implications for practice. Review of Research and Social Intervention, 29, 7-24.

Bushe, G.R. (2012). Appreciative inquiry: Theory and critique. In D. Boje, B. Burnes, & J. Hassard (eds.) The Routledge companion to organizational change (pp. 87-103). Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Bushe, G.R. (2013a). Generative process,

generative outcome: The transform-

ational potential of appreciative inquiry.

In D.L. Cooperrider, D.P. Zandee, L.

Godwin, M. Avital & B. Boland (eds.)

Organizational generativity (Advances in

appreciative inquiry, vol.4, 89-122).

Bingley, UK: Emerald Press.

Bushe, G.R. (2013b). Dialogic OD: A theory of practice. OD Practitioner, 45(1), 10-16.

Bushe, G.R., & Kassam, A. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational? A meta-case analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2), 161-181.

Bushe, G.R., & Marshak, R.J. (2009).

Revisioning organization development:

Diagnostic and dialogic premises and

patterns of practice. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 45(3), 348-368.

Bushe, G.R., & Marshak, R.J. (2014a)

Dialogic organization development. In

Jones, B.B. & M. Brazzel, (eds.) The NTL

handbook of organization development

and change, 2nd Ed. (pp.193-211). San

Francisco, CA: Wiley.


Bushe, G.R., & Marshak, R.J. (2014b). The

dialogic mindset in organization

development. Research in

Organizational Change and

Development, 22, 55-97.

Bushe, G.R., & Marshak, R.J. (eds.) (2015a)

Dialogic organization development: The

theory and practice of transformational

change. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Bushe, G.R., & Marshak, R.J. (2015b)

Introduction to the dialogic organization

development mindset. In G.R. Bushe &

R.J. Marshak, (eds.) Dialogic organization

development (pp.11-32) Oakland, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Bushe, G.R., & Storch, J. (2015) Generative

image: Sourcing novelty. In G.R. Bushe,

& R.J. Marshak, (eds.) Dialogic

organization development (pp.101-122)

Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Corrigan, C. (2015) Hosting and holding

containers. In G.R. Bushe, & R.J.

Marshak, (eds.) Dialogic organization

development (pp.291-304). Oakland, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Goppelt, J., & Ray, K.W. (2015) Dialogic

process consultation: Working live. In

G.R. Bushe, & R.J. Marshak, (eds.)

Dialogic organization development

(pp.371-399). Oakland, CA: Berrett-

Koehler.

Heifetz, R. (1998). Leadership without easy

answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Holman, P. (2015) Complexity, self-

organization and emergence In G.R.

Bushe, & R.J. Marshak, (eds.) Dialogic

organization development (pp.123-149).

Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the

universe: The Search for the laws of self-

organization and complexity. New York

City, NY: Oxford University Press.

Marshak, R.J. (2013) Leveraging language

for change. OD Practitioner, 45(2), 49-

55.

Marshak, R. J., & Grant, D. (2008).

Organizational discourse and new

organization development practices,

British Journal of Management, 19: S7-

S19.

Pascale, R., Milleman, M., & Gioja, L. (2001).

Surfing the edge of chaos. NY: Crown

Business.

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out

of chaos. Boulder, CO: Shambhala.

Ray, K. W. & Goppelt, J. (2013). From

special to ordinary: Dialogic OD in day-to-

day complexity. OD Practitioner, (45)1,

41-46.

Roehrig, M., Schwendenwein, J. & Bushe,

G.R. (2015) Amplifying change: A 3-phase

approach to model, nurture and embed

ideas for change. In G.R. Bushe, & R.J.



Berrett-Koehler.


Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in

organizations: A complexity approach to

change. London: Routledge.

Snowden, D.J., & Boone, M.E. (2007). A

leader’s framework for decision-making.

Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 69-76.

Stacey, R. (ed.) (2005). Experiencing

emergence in organizations. London, UK:

Routledge.

Stacey, R. (2015) Understanding

organizations as complex responsive

processes of relating In G.R. Bushe, & R.J.



Berrett-Koehler.

Storch, J. (2015) Enabling change: The skills

of dialogic OD. In G.R. Bushe, & R.J.



Berrett-Koehler.

Storch, J., & Ziethen, M. (2013). Re-

description: A source of generativity in

dialogic organization development, OD

Practitioner, 45(1), 25-29.

Swart, C. (2015) Coaching from a dialogic

OD paradigm. In G.R. Bushe, & R.J.



Berrett-Koehler.

For more depth on Dialogic OD visit

www.dialogicod.net

../../writing%20projects/www.dialogicod.net

the dialogic organization development approach to ...gervasebushe.ca/practicing.pdf · the dialogic...

Documents